Face it, the plan for next year is another tank

[Curt]

2 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Group had potential if allowed to stay together but….. bolded guys all traded away except Peterson who left on his own.  Also stockpile 1st rd picks in 2015 went with them

True, but I’ve heard no guarantee from Adams (or some future GM yet unhired) that prospects will not be traded away.

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

lol we did the same thing 

Yeah, you beat me by a few mins and gave a more professional presentation.  I went for a slightly more narrative approach.  Lol

[Thorny]

8 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Group had potential if allowed to stay together but….. bolded guys all traded away except Peterson who left on his own.  Also stockpile 1st rd picks in 2015 went with them

Asplund is one of your promising young "needs to be at C" guys and he was acquired in the Pysyk trade through the draft pick Tim acquired.  

McNabb was traded in a deal to bring back a prospect. 

We probably like how the Asplund one turned out, I don't have to like Hudson Fasching to know it wasn't a "accelerate the rebuild" type move, it was about trying to acquire a young asset he liked. The evaluation was wrong. I'd argue the strategy was fine. 

Edited July 26, 2021 by Thorny

[Thorny]

6 minutes ago, I-90 W said:

The only thing I fear is that if KA feels like he is on the hot seat a couple years from now for whatever reason, that he will start trading away our prospects and empty our cupboard for self preservation. If memory serves that’s what TM did.

Tim Murray made 25 selections in 3 drafts. I suggest people go back and read some of the old articles on Murray, for fun. He talks a lot about building through the draft specifically, but also about draft picks as "currency". Remember that? We used to use that term around here, now it's a faux pas. I actually think it's still ok to use picks in this way. How many picks should Murray have made? 30? 35? He attempted to generate value through deals for either young players, or guys that were PRETTY DARN YOUNG STILL who he thought could help out. 

He chose the wrong guys. 

It doesn't mean we need to dumb down the GM position to doing literally nothing besides making draft selections and waiting. 

Oh, after trading away all the good players. 

[Thorny]

8 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

The Voices of Gionta and Gorges were drowned out by Kane and Bogo unfortunately. 

Fits here. 

Correctly identified / Incorrectly identified 

It's a failure of execution but not strategy imo 

[SDS]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Tim Murray made 25 selections in 3 drafts. I suggest people go back and read some of the old articles on Murray, for fun. He talks a lot about building through the draft specifically, but also about draft picks as "currency". Remember that? We used to use that term around here, now it's a faux pas. I actually think it's still ok to use picks in this way. How many picks should Murray have made? 30? 35? He attempted to generate value through deals for either young players, or guys that were PRETTY DARN YOUNG STILL who he thought could help out. 

He chose the wrong guys. 

It doesn't mean we need to dumb down the GM position to doing literally nothing besides making draft selections and waiting. 

Oh, after trading away all the good players. 

Darcy was the first person I heard say that draft picks were the modern day currency of the NHL.

[Brawndo]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Fits here. 

Correctly identified / Incorrectly identified 

It's a failure of execution but not strategy imo 

Not on ice performance, but off ice shenanigans 

[Thorny]

3 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

Not on ice performance, but off ice shenanigans 

But apparently the accepted notion is they were divisive in the room

The bolded

[dudacek]

5 hours ago, Thorny said:

Didn't have one. 

We "fell in love" with the hard workers last time, those players never relinquished our soul. 

It's only management that can do that. 

Those players playing hard and the right way didn't mean anything. It doesn't mean anything. 

The exact on ice approach you are touting that is "on the players" already happened during the last tank

I know this isn't where you are, but you've read it from countless posters: "I don't like this team and I don't like these players, give me a team I can love.'

Effort helps, wins help, but basically for a lot of people, it's just about being likable.

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

I know this isn't where you are, but you've read it from countless posters: "I don't like this team and I don't like these players, give me a team I can love.'

Effort helps, wins help, but basically for a lot of people, it's just about being likable.

Fair enough. The thing I like most. well above all else, is winning a bit more than losing, so I tend to get focused on that a lot. 

On a positive note, TSN overdrive had a segment ranking the biggest stock risers after the draft, their analyst had the Sabres #2. Says he really liked everything we did and that we were set up to be in a good spot in 4-5 years. Gord Miller and Hayes kinda scoffed and said "show me" but that's what the analyst had. #1 was Columbus. 

[Thorny]

5 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I know this isn't where you are, but you've read it from countless posters: "I don't like this team and I don't like these players, give me a team I can love.'

Effort helps, wins help, but basically for a lot of people, it's just about being likable.

It's an entertainment product so style can and should matter, i get that. Should think about that more. Style is so inherently subjective I tend to bypass it as a discussion point. 

[Taro T]

21 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Fair enough. The thing I like most. well above all else, is winning a bit more than losing, so I tend to get focused on that a lot. 

On a positive note, TSN overdrive had a segment ranking the biggest stock risers after the draft, their analyst had the Sabres #2. Says he really liked everything we did and that we were set up to be in a good spot in 4-5 years. Gord Miller and Hayes kinda scoffed and said "show me" but that's what the analyst had. #1 was Columbus. 

TSN had the Sabres stock rising because they're set to be good HALF A DECADE FROM NOW?!?!?!?!?  What sort of Toronto Loaf Fan (lack of) logic is THAT?!?!?

WTF!?!

[Thorny]

Just now, Taro T said:

TSN had the Sabres stock rising because they're set to be good HALF A DECADE FROM NOW?!?!?!?!?  What sort of Toronto Loaf Fan (lack of) logic is THAT?!?!?

WTF!?!

Analytics people can't feel, they only see numbers 

[dudacek]

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

Also, the “THIS time we have a solid group of kids around” is a poor argument: we had the perception of that solid backing last time, too. You don’t get to look at Girgensons and Grigorenko and Ristolainen and Zadorov and, because they didn’t work out for us, say it’s “different” this time purely because you are seeing all our young players in the best light right now. 

At the time of the tank, THOSE guys were promising, too

The revisionist history is staggering. I guess that’s the “doomed to repeat it” thing in action 

 

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

We had a big prospect base last time. We have one this time. We have no idea if they will turn out better. We have to idea if we will keep them all or trade them all or if the ones we send packing will have been good had we kept them. Would we have been good if Murray didn't trade away Grigorenko and Zadorov and McNabb and Pysyk and Armia and Compher? I don't know that any of those players are impact guys right now. 

I like the optimism I guess I just don't understand the need to proclaim KA's rebuild as "virtuous" when it just freakin' started. 

I don't want to revisit the debate you guys already have had, but your comparisons change drastically when you adjust your dates to account for the correct timing of the great sell-offs.

I think we can agree Adams started at the deadline this year. The young players already playing pro were Cozens, Dahlin, Samuelsson, Pekar, Mittelstadt, Luukonen, Laaksonen, Bryson, Jokiharju, Asplund and Ruotsalainen

The previous one began at the deadline in 2013 when Darcy shipped off Jason Pominville. The young players already playing pro were Girgensons, Armia, Catenacci, Sundher, Pysyk, Kassian, McNabb and Foligno

I think that's notable difference in both top-end talent and depth.

[Taro T]

Just now, Thorny said:

Analytics people can't feel, they only see numbers 

Ohhhhhh Kaaaaay.  :unsure:

What ####ing numbers are telling them how things will lay out five friggin' years from now?

Heck, if Sabres analytics hold the Sabres will be on minimum their 2nd coach post Granato and very possibly their 3rd and on their 2nd GM post Adams.

[dudacek]

22 minutes ago, Thorny said:

It's an entertainment product so style can and should matter, i get that. Should think about that more. Style is so inherently subjective I tend to bypass it as a discussion point. 

But is something you can observe.

We all know the Granato Sabres were still objectively not very good, but it didn't stop people from enjoying them more.

[Thorny]

7 minutes ago, dudacek said:

 

I don't want to revisit the debate you guys already have had, but your comparisons change drastically when you adjust your dates to account for the correct timing of the great sell-offs.

I think we can agree Adams started at the deadline this year. The young players already playing pro were Cozens, Dahlin, Samuelsson, Pekar, Mittelstadt, Luukonen, Laaksonen, Bryson, Jokiharju, Asplund and Ruotsalainen

The previous one began at the deadline in 2013 when Darcy shipped off Jason Pominville. The young players already playing pro were Girgensons, Armia, Catenacci, Sundher, Pysyk, Kassian, McNabb and Foligno

I think that's notable difference in both top-end talent and depth.

Well yes because as mentioned we had more legit vet talent to sell off last time, the teardown was longer and seemed more extreme. It doesn't really matter where you place the thing in the timeline, we also still continued to pick up big assets as the first rebuild went on, past the point I mentioned. We still acquired the guys we acquired that "match up" with the ones we have now. 

[Thorny]

If you want to match up the starting points and say we're "on track" to have more assets, if you wanted the new build to maintain the advantage it has over the starting point of the old tank, it would have to match up with years coming next. Ie - if this is only "2013", we have to tank for 2 years and then ya at the end we'd have more prospect I'd guess. 

I was under the impression it was one more year we were planning on being at the top of the draft, maybe it's 2. 

[PerreaultForever]

4 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

They aren't tanking but finally rebuilding the right way. Unlike the tank for Sam and Jack, this organization has a solid group of kids in the system to build around.  Now the question is can management execute to fill the holes as they occur without harming the development of the kids.  This time they won't be trading the depth away to bring in "star" players. 

Now lets get 2 good goalies to back stop the kids and hopefully DG can get the kids playing hard every night win or lose. Sadly lose is more likely as the division will be stacked next season, with Cup contenders TB and Mon, playoff regulars like Boston and Toronto and newly competitive Florida.  Ott and Det also look like they'll be better.  The Sabres could still finish last in the division and be significantly better on the ice.   

I want to look at it this way too, and so far they haven't traded away draft picks for a quick fix and adding "stars" but I think the question does remain, is this the bottom (I want to believe it is) or do they also plan to try to add Shane Wright to go along with Power? What they do or don't do from now until the start of the season should answer that. 

[WildCard]

14 minutes ago, Thorny said:

If you want to match up the starting points and say we're "on track" to have more assets, if you wanted the new build to maintain the advantage it has over the starting point of the old tank, it would have to match up with years coming next. Ie - if this is only "2013", we have to tank for 2 years and then ya at the end we'd have more prospect I'd guess. 

I was under the impression it was one more year we were planning on being at the top of the draft, maybe it's 2. 

It's gotta be only one. 

[PerreaultForever]

31 minutes ago, Taro T said:

TSN had the Sabres stock rising because they're set to be good HALF A DECADE FROM NOW?!?!?!?!?  What sort of Toronto Loaf Fan (lack of) logic is THAT?!?!?

WTF!?!

No necessarily wrong. Depends how you define "good". 

[Curt]

50 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I was under the impression it was one more year we were planning on being at the top of the draft, maybe it's 2.

 

36 minutes ago, WildCard said:

It's gotta be only one. 

[dudacek]

31 minutes ago, Thorny said:

If you want to match up the starting points and say we're "on track" to have more assets, if you wanted the new build to maintain the advantage it has over the starting point of the old tank, it would have to match up with years coming next. Ie - if this is only "2013", we have to tank for 2 years and then ya at the end we'd have more prospect I'd guess. 

I was under the impression it was one more year we were planning on being at the top of the draft, maybe it's 2. 

Actually it's not the volume of the assets that I focused on, it's where they are in terms of being able to play.

Girgs and Risto and Girgorenko and Zadorov were tossed to the wolves as teenagers in 2013-15. Quinn and Power and Peterka and Rosen shouldn't be.

Dahlin, Joki, Mitts, Cozens etc. aren't entering next year as raw rookies, but as guys who have already been developed and have some basic understanding of life as an NHL pro. We had no one with the upside of Dahlin or Cozens in 2013.

And instead of TWO years dedicated to the sole purpose of losing as many games as possible with all the damage that does, we get one year (fingers crossed) that should be one big 82-game teachable moment where the goal is steady, measurable improvement and team-building that provides the proper foundation for increased success each year to come, with proper environment for the guys following to join when they are ready.

And if it results in another top-3 pick in 11 months, great. If not, that's great too. It means that our guys developed.

[Thorny]

11 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Actually it's not the volume of the assets that I focused on, it's where they are in terms of being able to play.

Girgs and Risto and Girgorenko and Zadorov were tossed to the wolves as teenagers in 2013-15. Quinn and Power and Peterka and Rosen shouldn't be.

Dahlin, Joki, Mitts, Cozens etc. aren't entering next year as raw rookies, but as guys who have already been developed and have some basic understanding of life as an NHL pro. We had no one with the upside of Dahlin or Cozens in 2013.

And instead of TWO years dedicated to the sole purpose of losing as many games as possible with all the damage that does, we get one year (fingers crossed) that should be one big 82-game teachable moment where the goal is steady, measurable improvement and team-building that provides the proper foundation for increased success each year to come, with proper environment for the guys following to join when they are ready.

And if it results in another top-3 pick in 11 months, great. If not, that's great too. It means that our guys developed.

Girgs was playing in the AHL prior, wasn't he? He had pro experience. 

I don't know that I buy Cozens 41 gp exempts him from being considered "thrown to the wolves" next year - in fact I disagree with that entirely. That's not very  much experience. Mittelstadt and Dahlin, sure, but Dahlin has already experienced a lot of losing, so I hope he hasn't been dented by it. 

There are certainly young players I feel could potentially be negatively affected by running up a lot of losses next year, without that veteran support that helps them remain competitive - I don't really know why we go in circles here: you either agree they need veteran backing or you don't. If you do, our opinion on how it needs to be done is pretty much the same. If you think we can trot out who we have right now more less, now, I don't think that's enough. I fear the losses will add up and I fear it's a cycle. 

Edited July 27, 2021 by Thorny

[dudacek]

11 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Girgs was playing in the AHL prior, wasn't he? He had pro experience. 

I don't know that I buy Cozens 41 gp exempts him from being considered "thrown to the wolves" next year - in fact I disagree with that entirely. That's not very  much experience. Mittelstadt and Dahlin, sure, but Dahlin has already experienced a lot of losing, so I hope he hasn't been dented by it. 

There are certainly young players I feel could potentially be negatively affected by running up a lot of losses next year, without that veteran support that helps them remain competitive - I don't really know why we go in circles here: you either agree they need veteran backing or you don't. If you do, our opinion on how it needs to be done is pretty much the same. If you think we can trot out who we have right now more less, now, I don't think that's enough. I fear the losses will add up and I fear it's a cycle. 

Usually because each is trying to wrestle the conversation over to different elements of the same issue. 😄

Whether Girgs or Cozens quite qualifies or not doesn’t respond to my overall point. And I certainly feel like young players could be impacted negatively by a ton of losses as well, and that they need veteran support. There is no debate from me there.

All I am basically saying is the group of U23 Sabres right now is significantly deeper, more talented and more prepared than the group of the same in July of 2013 and I think that puts us in a better position to avoid the damage caused by 2013-15. And I also believe the Adams/Granato braintrust is more aware of the dangers of the tear down than Murray/Nolan and better equipped to mitigate.

[Randall Flagg]

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

 but if you keep in mind how we were viewing the guys on the right (Justin Bailey?)

This is more or less impossible to do, even when you try you can't rinse the stain of how things turned out with them away